Commons Sitting of 3 March 1886

MINUTES.
Supply—considered in Committee—Resolutions [March 1] reported.
PUBLIC Bills—Ordered— First Reading— Borough Funds* [122]; Drowned Persons (Discovery and Interment)* [123]; Parliamentary Franchise* [124]; Copyright (Works of Fine Art)* [125]; Actions for Debt (Limitation)* [126]; Conveyancing (Scotland) Act, 1874, Amendment* [127].
Second Reading— Labourers' (Ireland) Acts Amendment [10]; Unclaimed Deposits [77]; Coal Mines Regulation Act (1872) Amendment [108]; Coal Mines [92].

LABOURERS' (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 10.]
(Mr. Mayne, Mr. T. P. O'Connor, Mr. William O'Brien, Mr. Sexton, Mr Sheehy.)
LABOURERS' (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 10.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. MAYNE,in rising to move that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it did not contain anything which could, in common fairness, be described as of a really contentious character. It was drawn to meet and overcome certain difficulties, chiefly technical, that had developed themselves in the working of the Labourers' (Ireland) Act of 1883, which Act, although passed in that year, might be said to have only come into practical operation since the passing of the

  1811
  amending Act of 1885. The Act of 1883 was really a great measure—great in the principles that it established, and great in the concessions which it made in the interests of the Irish agricultural labourers; but, however, like many other great measures which proceeded largely upon new lines, small points were apparently omitted from it, which might appear insignificant, but which, in the hands of ingenuous persons, had proved very serious bars to the proper working of the measure. The very first operative section of the Act of 1883 enacted that a representation signed by 12 ratepayers of a sanitary district might be presented to a sanitary authority, which authority was the Board of Guardians; and if the representation alleged a sanitary defect in the district, it should be accompanied by a certificate or a report from the sanitary officer of the district upon that representation. It was then competent to the Guardians to take steps to have a scheme adopted by themselves and approved by the Local Government Board; but the Act failed altogether to make it the duty of the sanitary officer to give such certificate, or make a report; and, accordingly, they were face to face with this difficulty in certain Unions in Ireland, that, unfortunately, there were certain Boards of Guardians, the majority of whose members were hostile to the operation of the Act, and the sanitary officer taking his cue from what he saw to be the feeling of the majority of his Board, neglected, more or less wilfully, to make any report whatever; and in that way the representation made by the 12 ratepayers was strangled at the outset, the House would therefore see that thus an official had the power of preventing the operation of the Act altogether in the district to which he was attached. Now, they proposed, in this amending Bill, to meet that difficulty by enacting that the representation signed by the 12 ratepayers, should be presented to the Board of Guardians either with, or without, a report from the sanitary officer; that it would then become the duty of the Board to require their officer to inspect the district, and report to them as to the necessity for the proposed improvement scheme as suggested by the ratepayers. The Bill further proposed that in case the sanitary officer's report should be unfavourable to the proposed improve-
  1812
  ment scheme, an appeal should lie from the 12 ratepayers who had signed the original representation, or from any other 12 ratepayers in the district, to the Local Government Board, who, on having this appeal lodged with them, should send a Sanitary Inspector of their own to inspect the district, and report to them as to the necessity for the proposed improvement scheme. In case the Inspector reported in favour of the scheme, the Bill provided that his report should take the place of the unfavourable report of the local sanitary officer; and that, with this exception, the proceeding should go on as if no hitch whatever had occurred. Ho thought the House would consider that that was a reasonable way to meet what was a very real and substantial grievance. Another portion of the Bill which might be considered contentious was that portion in which they wished, under the Act of 1883, to give the Local Government Board power to amend Provisional Orders already made. The necessity for this had arisen in this way—When the Act of 1883 was passed, and before its few shortcomings became known, many Boards of Guardians in Ireland and in some Unions where the operation of the Act was very urgently needed, rushed at once into the preparation of schemes, and had them approved by the Local Government Board in the regular way authorized by the Act. When the proceedings were brought so far, they found that the areas of charge-ability were so circumscribed, that the serious cost of the improvement schemes would prove such heavy burdens on the ratepayers of these small areas, that they preferred letting the schemes stand in abeyance, and taking their chance of relief from the Legislature. In that way, there were some excellent schemes fully matured, ready to be put into operation to-morrow in certain parts of Ireland, if the area of chargeability could be so extended as to make the necessary rating more oppressive. They now proposed, by means of the Bill, to meet that difficulty, by giving the Local Government Board powers, which they might exercise within one year, and within one year only, from the passing of the Bill, to alter the area of chargeability in such way as they might deem desirable. He did not think any hon. Member would question the advisability of that

  1813
  which was probably the only way of getting over a difficulty that must be overcome, because the present arrangements involved an absolute breakdown of the Act. There was another portion of the Bill which some hon. Members might consider contentious. He was very sorry for the necessity of having to notice it, but it had become absolutely necessary. It was found that in some Unions, after the question of these improvement schemes and the erection of labourers' cottages had been fought out in every fashion that was legitimate at the Poor Law Boards and elsewhere, when the question was finally decided in favour of the adoption of the scheme, then an effectual bar was put to the further progress of it by the owners of the local quarries in the districts affected by the scheme refusing to allow their quarries to be used for the obtaining of stone or sand, or the other necessary material. The Board of Guardians, finding that the cartage of such materials from long distances greatly increased the cost of erecting cottages, dropped their schemes rather than they would burden the construction of the cottages with such an enormous expense; and, in that way, schemes which had been approved by the Local Government Board were standing still, awaiting help from the Legislature to meet that difficulty. In order to provide that help the promoters of the Bill had copied into it, almost verbatim, the sections of the Grand Jury Acts which enabled road contractors to enter quarries in the district in which their contract lay, and to draw there-from the materials necessary for its execution, subject, of course, to reasonable restrictions, which hon. Members would find were also included in this measure. The only other point upon which he thought hon. Members would be disposed to raise any question, was the proposition that, before a labourer's cottage was ready for occupation, the Board of Guardians should be empowered to permit the labourer to occupy the half-acre of land intended to be attached to the cottage. At present, the expectant tenant had to wait until the cottage was completed, and meanwhile the ground lay waste, supplying seeds of weeds for the whole town land. The only other provisions of the Bill were technical alterations, which might be more conveniently explained in Committee. He
  1814
  thought the House would agree with him, in repeating what he had before observed—that the measure contained nothing that was seriously contentious, and that it was a reasonable and moderate attempt to meet the difficulties which, though apparently small in themselves, had proved very serious, and which must be met, if the Act of 1883 was to be the success which the Legislature intended it to be. He appealed with strong confidence to that new House, that they would complete the work of the late Parliament bypassing this measure, and thus securing that in no part of Ireland should any unfortunate man, whoso labour was necessary to the soil, be any longer condemned to dwell in a miserable hovel, in which his own life was shortened, and, probably, the health of his wife and family sacrificed. In conclusion, he begged to move the second reading of the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Mayne.)
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): The hon. Member who has moved the second reading of this Bill has described very clearly the matters which the Bill embodies. He, no doubt, was fully justified in speaking of the Act of 1883 as a measure proceeding on new lines, and involving very important principles. I find great difficulty, however, in discovering what are the principles, or what is the principle, underlying this measure, and the hon. Member probably will not contend that it is animated by any very important leading principles. On the contrary, the Bill is rather intended to cover a number of individual instances in which the Acts of 1883 and 1885 have been found to work less effectually than the framers intended. I do, however, find two approaches to general principles in the Bill. The first is, no doubt, to give a quickening impulse to the Acts of 1883 and 1885 by relaxing the checks which Parliament imposed on the proceedings of the sanitary authorities; next, by relieving the sanitary authorities from local and Imperial taxation on the land acquired by them under the Act—that, I am sure, hon. Members will see is a very important relaxation—and, lastly, by extending the area of chargeability. The

  1815
  second approach to a general principle is that the Bill gives new compulsory powers of taking land, which at present can only be taken by consent of the owner, as well as digging for gravel and stone, in cases where at present they can only be taken by the Grand Jury. The Bill goes even further in the same direction, by giving absolutely new powers to take these against the will of the owner. These are remarks, from a general point of view, to which the Bill is open. I would point out to the hon. Member that a Select Committee sat upon the Act of 1883 in the summer and autumn of 1884, and that this Committee, having heard a great number of experts of great competence and influence, did not recommend the proposals which he has embodied in his Bill. That, of course, would not be a conclusive objection to the Bill or any of its clauses; but it is a primâ facie reason for exercising considerable vigilance in scrutinizing the proposals now before us. Apart from the discussion of the details of the proposal to give greater facilities to carry out the Acts already passed—about those details I will say a word presently—I would wish to point out to the House that the working of the Act, so far from showing that there are undue obstacles and impediments interposed to impede the acquisition of land, shows that the processes that the Acts contemplate have been extremely rapid and successful, and some timid persons may think that they have been so rapid as almost to be alarming. I would like to describe very briefly what have been the proceedings under the Act of 1883, which the hon. Member has rather disparaged. The number of Unions which made applications under the Act of 1883 was 70; the number of schemes proposed, 734; the number of houses, 6,837; and the estimated cost of the schemes, as submitted, £635,716. Now, we will come to the schemes sanctioned under the Act. The number of schemes sanctioned was 462; the number of houses contained in those schemes, 3,401 the estimated cost, £356,120; and the loans actually sanctioned, £220,000, and the residue of the loans were now pending. The reason, as may be justly asked by hon. Members, why there is so wide a difference between the schemes proposed and the schemes actually sanctioned, I
  1816
  believe may be summarized as being threefold. First, the withdrawal of the scheme by the Guardians, in consequence of adverse reports by the Inspectors of the Local Government Board; secondly, the refusal of the schemes by the Local Government Board for discretionary reasons; and, lastly, no doubt, the general expectation that the legislation of 1883 would be amended—these three considerations explain the withdrawals. Let us now go to the working of the Act of 1885. The Returns of the new schemes under that Act present the following figures:— The number of Unions that put the Act in force is 84; the number of schemes is not given, but the number sanctioned is given at 554; but it is estimated that the actual number will be probably between 600 and 700; the number of houses, 9,035; and the estimated cost, £847,211.
  MR. SEXTON: Are these in addition to the former figures of 1883?
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: Yes; I understand that is so.
  MR. MACARTNEY: Down to what date?
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: They come down to a couple of months ago, and they are in addition to the schemes under the Act of 1883. There is, therefore, no ground for alleging that the working of the Acts of 1883 and 1885 has been very tardy, or backward. Next, as justifying my position that we must move with the greatest circumspection, I would point out the very important fact as to the rents, that the rents charged for these cottages, so far as built, vary from 8d. to 1s. per week; and in one Union only—I believe near Dublin—the rent amounts to 1s. 6d. a-week. Manifestly, these rents are not sufficient to pay off the interest and sinking fund of the capital sums borrowed, and the loss which will arise must fall either upon the Union, or on the Treasury, should the Union unfortunately become insolvent. In many Unions the rates, as hon. Members must know, are already as high as can well be paid, and many ratepayers in the poorer districts are themselves as much in need of help as those for whose benefit the Act is passed, and to whom help was given. The conclusion to be drawn from these facts is that, for the present, at all events, we must exercise great caution in relaxing the cheeks which Parliament in 1883 and

  1817
  1885 imposed, and we must scrutinize the hon. Member's proposals with some degree of vigilance. For example, Clause 9 is one of very great importance; it is a very great extension of the principles which Parliament sanctioned in the two previous Bills. I am not, at present, however, going to discuss that clause. I have very little objection to the spirit and purpose of it; on the contrary, I think it is very likely that legislation in the future, not in Ireland only, but in Great Britain, will move more and more in that direction. Clause 11 raises a principle which I am afraid I cannot very willingly assent to. The principle of allowing Boards of Guardians to meddle with the payment of the Grand Jury cess, and still more to meddle with an Imperial tax, is one which I do not believe that the hon. Member will be able very readily to persuade the House to sanction. The clause on which the hon. Member himself lays most stress is the 8th— that for extending the area of charge. That clause will have a very serious effect upon mortgages already entered into. If we extended the area of charge, the term of every mortgage that has been drawn will have to be amended, and the mortgages reconstructed. That is not, perhaps, a very formidable objection; but it is a point that the hon. Member will have to consider. In relation to the same clause, I will remind the hon. Member that, under the Act of 1883, Boards of Guardians proposed the area of charge and the Local Government Board determined it; but, under the Amending Act of 1885, the Boards of Guardians fix the area of charge, and in most of the schemes already made, as I am informed, an area of charge less than the whole Union has been deliberately selected. It will be, therefore, I submit, manifestly unjust to re-open the question now, and not to give any locus standi to the outside ratepayers who may wish to oppose the change. It may well have happened that such ratepayers abstained from opposing the schemes because the charge was limited to a certain area. However, those, and other points, no doubt, can be dealt with in Committee, if the Bill should ever reach that stage. My general conclusion upon the Bill is that, at the present time, it can scarcely be said to be urgently called for; particularly at a time when Boards of Guar-
  1818
  dians ought to try, and ought to be urged by the Legislature to try, rather to contract their obligations and expenditure than to commit themselves to wider obligations. It is not, I think, necessary—not absolutely necessary— for carrying out the intentions of Parliament; because I think I have shown, by figures, that those intentions are already being carried out in a very tolerably satisfactory manner; and, thirdly, I will remark that the reasonableness of all the proposed amendments of the Acts is not quite apparent. They will require a great deal of consideration. The upshot of what I have to say is that, while the Government will not oppose the second reading of the Bill, we are not prepared to promise any facilities for its further discussion, and we do not pledge ourselves to support all the clauses which the hon. Member has included in his measure.
  MR. SHEEHYsaid, he was glad the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, on behalf of the Government, did not intend to oppose the Motion for the second reading; but he regretted to hear him say that he could not give facilities for the further progress of the Bill on ascertaining more of the facts relating to it. The right hon. Gentleman had indicated that some of the clauses of the Bill were somewhat contentious; but, if they were more closely inquired into, they would be found to contain very little about which there would be any contention. In fact, he (Mr. Sheehy) thought that the right hon. Gentleman would find that the Acts of 1883 and 1885 had not worked so satisfactorily as he supposed, and that the numerous small amendments provided for by this measure were absolutely necessary to bring them into general operation and make them work smoothly. The promoters of the present Bill did not desire to introduce any new principle which would give rise to a difference of opinion between Parties in the House. All they wished to provide was that the Acts of 1883 and 1885 should not be open to obstructions to which they were at present exposed at the hands of the enemies of the Acts, and which they had placed in the way of the poor people in Ireland, for whose benefit the Acts were intended. There were two sources from which those obstructions came. One of the obstructions

  1819
  they were exposed to arose from the landlord class, who were the ex officio members of the Boards of Poor Law Guardians. [Cries of "No, no!"] He could assure the House that it was so, and that, if not for the obstruction of these gentlemen, there would be much less necessity for any Bill of this kind, neither would he and other hon. Members from Ireland be there in their places to say so. The other cause of obstruction was the delay of officials and the obstacles put in the way of Unions by the Local Government Board. The obstruction of ex officio Guardians was not apparent in all Unions, because, in some Unions, the elected members had a preponderance of power; but in some of the Western Unions of Connaught, the ex officio members still ruled the roast, and, as a consequence, they endeavoured to postpone and procrastinate the working of the Acts, the result being that, while they were fully in operation in Munster, and to a large extent in operation in Leinster, they were practically a dead letter in Connaught. The ex officio members, in short, had obstructed the Acts wherever they had the power to do so. When the Act of 1883 was introduced, the labourers of Ireland looked anxiously and hopefully to its results. It was found, however, that that Act was practically unworkable, and the labourers had to wait until the Act was amended, in 1885, before they got any benefits from it. Even under the latter Act very little had been done. Though a great many schemes were proposed and sanctioned under the two Acts, still very few houses were built, while the schemes still remained in abeyance. There were hundreds of half-acre plots through the country belonging to the Guardians which were now waste, and which might be given to the labourers, pending the building of the houses. So far with the poor Irish labourer it was hope deferred. The labourers were still waiting and waiting, and hoping and hoping; but, up to the present time, their condition had not been materially improved, because of the defects in the Acts, and the obstruction to which he had referred. Apart altogether from the opposition of the landlords in Unions where they were sufficiently powerful to put obstacles in the way, a great deal of delay was caused by the circumlocution of the Local Government Board. In
  1820
  many cases Unions had agreed to schemes, after bestowing great care and labour on them, as far back as last December; but they were not yet sanctioned, because the Inspector of the Local Government Board had not come down to make the requisite inquiries and report. The most important clause of the Bill, in his opinion, was that which enabled the Boards of Guardians to let the half-acre plot to the labourer while his house was being built for him. That would give work to the labourers, at the present moment, in fencing the plots; and it would enable the labourer, for whom the plot was intended, to till the ground. He was very glad that the Government had consented to the second reading of the Bill; and he hoped that when it was taken in Committee, the Government would see that the measure was more urgently called for than the Chief Secretary for Ireland imagined, and that there was no ground for the apprehensions he entertained in regard to certain of the clauses. He thought it would be found that the contentions referred to were not essential, and were only philosophical contentions.
  MR. MULHOLLANDsaid, that as an Ulster Member, who had had frequent opportunities of studying the Labourers' Question in Ireland, he thought he did not require to make any apology to the House for prolonging the discussion on this subject. Indeed, he thought hon. Members sitting on both sides would be glad of hearing a full and thorough discussion on the question, in view of the larger question of the same kind which they would soon have to deal with in England. With regard to the Bill before the House, he did not propose to enter into some of its details; but, speaking for himself—and, he thought, he might also say for hon. Members of the loyal North of Ireland Party who sat near him—he might say that they were prepared to support any clauses in the Bill which would have the effect of giving increased facilities to the labourers of Ireland to take advantage of, and secure the benefits of, the Acts of 1883 and 1885. But he thought that the Bill before the House was not, by any means, a satisfactory or complete measure, and that what they required was, that a Bill of this character should be based on a full inquiry into the whole operation of the La-

  1821
  bourers' Acts. For his own part, he considered that when those Acts were amended, they ought to be amended in a thorough manner, and their provisions ought to be extended so as to include classes of the community in Ireland who, at present, were excluded from the benefits of such legislation, such as fishermen, who spent a great deal of their time on shore, and also weavers and other deserving classes of the labouring population, of whom much the same thing might be said. In the course of his canvass at the time of the General Election, lie had had an opportunity of ascertaining the opinion of all classes in regard to this subject, and more especially those of the labourers themselves; and he was in a position to inform the House that there was a considerable amount of disappointment and discontent among labourers of all kinds that the Acts had not been brought more extensively into operation. They considered—he would not say with what justice—that the Acts, and especially the Act of 1885, had conferred certain legal rights on them to acquire a cottage and half-an-acre of land at a certain rent, and that the Poor Law Guardians were preventing them acquiring the advantages thus given to them. It appeared to him that the Acts were working in two very different ways in two different parts of Ireland. In some districts, and chiefly, if not entirely, the Northern districts—the more prosperous parts of Ireland—where the Poor Law Guardians consisted chiefly of farmers who occupied farms of moderate size, they looked on these Acts in a very different light from that in which they regarded the Land Act. He thought that Parliament, having passed these Acts—and their justice and necessity had been admitted by both sides—it was only right that the Acts should be really utilized. He therefore cordially agreed with the promoters of the present Bill that some change should be made, and an alteration and improvement effected in the administrative machinery of the Acts. The only question was as to how that should be done, and he suggested that some independent Government Inspector or Commissioner should be appointed to take the initiative in all these matters, and bring them before the Guardians, with the view of getting them to carry
  1822
  out the Acts. In the North of Ireland the compulsion should be effectually applied. As to the other parts of Ireland, with which hon. Members below the Gangway were connected, and in which the National League, he was sorry to say, held sway, the condition of things was different indeed. [Mr. SEXTON: The Act works there.] In other parts of Ireland he found cottages were being built on a somewhat extensive scale. ["Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members cheered what he said, and no doubt considered that they were entitled to take credit for liberality in taking advantage of the Act. But, in their parts of Ireland, the chief burden of the rates was not borne by hon. Members and the class they represented. [An hon. MEMBER: Who bears it?] Hon. Members who were acquainted with local affairs in Ireland were, doubtless, aware that when the holdings were rated at under £4 a-year, the whole of the rates were paid by the landlords. Now, this was the case in parts of Ireland where the National League held its sway; and, therefore, the Poor Law Guardians, in putting this Act into force, and this burden on the rates, were putting no burden on themselves, or on the classes whom the National League principally represented. He ventured, on those grounds, to suggest that before any new amending Act was passed there should be an authoritative and searching inquiry into the whole working of the Acts, and that this inquiry should include such questions as the cost of the cottages, the rents charged for the same, and the burdens which fell on the rates. In some parts of Ireland, he regretted very much to have to say, the Acts had been utilized for political purposes, as he had seen numerous resolutions passed by the branches of the National League, recommending that cottages should be built only for those labourers who were members of the League. He found also that persons chosen to build these cottages were selected from those belonging to the National League. It seemed to him (Mr. Mulholland) that these things should be carefully considered, and, moreover, that they ought to be considered in reference to the state of Ireland, and to the amount of intimidation exercised by the Society to which he had referred. ["Oh, oh!"] He would

  1823
  not enter further into that matter now, but would simply add that, for his own part, he was prepared to support many parts of the Bill before the House, but there were other parts which he considered to be very objectionable; and, looking at the Bill as a whole, he must say that he regarded it as by far too incomplete a measure to be accepted as a final settlement of this important question.
  MR. O'HEAsaid, he thought the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had given a very valuable contribution to the debate, and he (Mr. O'Hea) thought it a very happy, as well as a very healthy, sign to find a Member of the Ulster Party stating that he considered that the legislation for the Irish, labourers was to his mind not complete. When the Bill got into Committee, he hoped the hon. Member would have a full and ample opportunity of giving them the benefit of his large views and liberality of sentiment. He, for one, would certainly be very glad if the measure could be extended so as to give a share of its benefits to the classes referred to by the hon. Gentleman, who were well worthy and deserving of attention being shown them, more especially the fishermen along the coasts. When the Acts were originally passed they were intended to refer only to agricultural labourers; but it was not too late to introduce fishermen and other classes in the present Bill. He had carefully followed the observations of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and, although the right hon. Gentleman had led the House to believe that the Acts had been made to work with expedition and despatch, he thought the figures the right hon. Gentleman had quoted recoiled on himself, and showed that the Acts had been almost wholly inoperative, and that they had not, in any way, been a success. He had himself been professionally concerned in the working of the Act of 1885, and he could say emphatically that it was a most cumbersome measure, full of vexatious delays and difficulties. Under the Act of 18 S3, the number of cottages provided for was 6,700, which would not represent a population of more than 40,000. The Act of 1885, again, had been only a small improvement, because the number of houses provided for was only some 9,000; and, putting down six as the number of the
  1824
  occupants of each house, the entire number benefited would not be much more than 50,000. The entire number, therefore, was less than 100,000—a rate which would necessitate a labourer waiting five years before he could get any benefit from this legislation, and which showed that the operation of the Acts had been incomplete, and much less than the requirements of the people or the intentions of the Legislature. The Bill now proposed was in the direction of a much-needed improvement; and he hoped that the House would practically recognize the fact. It would, he was convinced, produce a marked and decided improvement in the condition of the people of Ireland; and, therefore, he hoped it would be passed into law, and so make it possible for the people, instead of living in hovels, to have comfortable roofs over their heads.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, the differences of opinion in politics should not prevent hon. Members from recognizing the merits of their opponents, and he gladly bore testimony to the character of the speech made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Derry (Mr. Mulholland). It was a fluent and remarkable speech, and the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh (Major Saunder-son), sometimes called the Leader of his Party, would now have to look to his laurels and to deal with the fact that he had a powerful rival near his throne. However, fluency was not all that was requisite in order to make a successful Parliamentary speech; and when he admitted that the hon. Member for North Derry had made a fluent speech, he (Mr. Sexton) thought his praise must end there. It would have been desirable if, before he rose to speak, the hon. Gentleman had made up his mind as to what result he meant to leave on the mind of the House; for, after the most careful study of the speech of the hon. Member, he (Mr. Sexton) was entirely at a loss to understand what was the state of the hon. Gentleman's mind on the subject. The hon. Member complained that the Bill was not a complete measure. Well, it was certainly not a complete measure; but in allowing it to remain an incomplete measure his hon. Friend the Member for Tipperary (Mr. Mayne) had a view to his chances of passing it through the House; and when the hon. Member for North Derry said it was incomplete,

  1825
  he (Mr. Sexton) would have thought that he would have endeavoured to induce the Chief Secretary for Ireland not merely to assent to the second reading, but to reconsider the statement as to his giving further facilities. He thought the hon. Member, to be consistent, would have urged the Government to hasten the measure, and afford him the opportunity of completing it. But the hon. Member rode off on a side issue. The Ulster Tory Members, speaking generally, admitted admirable principles; but when you came to ask them to put those admirable principles into operation—to come in on the broad track of reform—they at once performed an operation well known in Ireland—they went "up a boreen"—they found, at a critical moment, a convenient siding, and then disappeared from view. The hon. Gentleman was, in some sense, in sympathy with modern views; but his methods were rather antique, and when asked how to got rid of the incompleteness his only suggestion was—"It wants thorough inquiry," the usual convenient form of shelving a disagreeable subject. Surely, the hon. Member could not forget that the question had been for a long time before a Committee of the House in 1884. He (Mr. Sexton) was a Member of that Committee, and he could assure him that the inquiry was very full and searching. The object now was to amend the Act of 1885, and the character of the defects of that Act was certainly not of such a kind as to necessitate another like inquiry. Was it a proof of the sincerity of the hon. Member that ho would again postpone the settlement of this question for another year, leaving so many deserving people landless and homeless? The sympathy of the hon. Member appeared to be very great, so far as his mind was concerned; but it did not appear in the least to agitate his heart. He entirely agreed with the hon. Gentleman that there were other classes besides the agricultural labourers who needed help in this matter. The fishermen of the coasts had suffered more, perhaps, than any other class from the parsimony of British legislation, and ho thought they should be brought under the influence of some similar legislation. He (Mr. Sexton) himself, when the original Acts were in Committee, had made a similar proposition; and when the Member for
  1826
  North Derry saw his way to taking any practical action to assist the fishermen he would find for him more active support than, perhaps, he could get from his hon. and gallant Friend and Leader the Member for North Armagh. Another point was this—as to the composition and action of Boards of Guardians in Ireland. Those Boards consisted of about one-half landlords and magistrates, and he would ask the attention of Irish Tory Members to this. The hon. Member (Mr. Mulholland) had urged that Poor Law Guardians in the North of Ireland should be compelled to put the Act in force. That was rather a strong step to take, and he (Mr. Sexton) did not know how the hon. Gentleman's Colleagues would like it; but, anyhow, it would be interesting to know whether he and they thought that landlords in Ireland, acting as Poor Law Guardians, ought to be compelled to put the Act in force. If the hon. Member meant that, he (Mr. Sexton) quite agreed with him, though he would be a little bit surprised, for it was surely a little inconsistent on the part of the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member admitted that in certain parts of Ireland—in the North—the Act had not worked, and he would compel the Guardians to act. Let the House mark the inconsistency. In the same breath the hon. Member complained that, in other parts of Ireland, where the Act did work, the National League used intimidation; in fact, ho complained of the National League doing what he himself urged ought to be done. Besides, the landlords had half the seats at the Boards.
  MR. MULHOLLAND: No; not on the Boards of Guardians I referred to.
  MR. SEXTON: Surely the hon. Gentleman could not be ignorant of the fact that the landlords held half the seats at the Boards of every Union in Ireland. Every Union had two elements, the elected Guardians there sent by the ratepayers, and the other half was composed of magistrates—ex officio Guardians.
  MR. MULHOLLAND: They are not always present—I mean Members who sit as a rule.
  MR. SEXTON: Quite so. Of course, the landlords, in that regard, as in everything else, neglected their duty. They stayed away from the Board, except when there was a job to be done. But they possessed one-half the seats at

  1827
  the Boards; and if they did not choose to attend, he was sorry to say it was not in his power to compel them. Another absurd statement made was that Boards of Guardians were intimidated by the National League into erecting cottages where they "held sway," as the hon. Member expressed it, because the farmers paid less of the rates than in other parts. He took issue with the hon. Gentleman on that point, and contended that the contrary was the fact. The holdings in Ulster were usually small, and in Munster and Leinster extensive; and in the latter case they were certain to pay a larger proportion of the rates than where they were small. As to the phrase used "Where the National League held sway," it was held that the Irish National Party and the National League were synonymous. Well, all he could say was, that the part of Ireland "where the National League holds sway," as tested by the return of Irish Members, was all Ireland, except three counties, and even in those they had had effected an inroad, and would doubtless get a further advance. On the whole, he must say that while the hon. Member appeared to have a platonic affection for Tory Democracy, and was disposed to speak quite sympathetically of the labourers, his affection did not seem to have advanced a bit beyond the platonic stage. He asked the hon. Member, if he really wanted to show that he was interested in the poor of Ireland, whether, instead of contradicting himself in every third sentence, instead of saying the measure was incomplete and then shelving it, instead of saying the Guardians should be compelled to act, and, at the same time, blaming the National League for doing that, instead of making such speeches, the hon. Gentleman should consider how he could best and most effectually help to bring to a satisfactory settlement this important question? As to the Income Tax, there was not very much in that point, and he would be prepared to strike it out. He hoped that facilities would still be given by the Government for the Committee stage; and he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that if that were done, he would find a readiness on the part of Irish Members to accept any reasonable modification that might be suggested, and which would be justified by argument. He would ask the attention of
  1828
  hon. Gentlemen to a letter which he had received from a labourer in Ballymena Union, pointing out that a committee had there been appointed to consider the erection of labourers' cottages, and one member of the committee resigned in consequence of the way in which the proceedings had been conducted.
  MR. MACARTNEY: Was he an ex officio, or an elected Guardian?
  MR. SEXTON: It did not matter. If he was elected it was a credit to him; and if an ex officio he acted so honour-ably that he could scarcely he an Ulster landlord. The whole question of Local Government would soon be discussed and dealt with. This was not the time to deal with it, and in view of that fact he would stop short of a proposition to make the Guardians take action; for if they were to be compelled, the power to do so would fall to an official Bureau devoid of representative capacity, and he was not inclined to give power to such a body. The true way to settle this matter would be to make the elective system supreme on these Boards. Last year ho had endeavoured to induce the Treasury to give the Guardians, for the purposes of the Labourers' Act, the same terms that the late Government held out to tenants under the Land Act—that was, to give them £100 for £4 a-year. He was quite sure that if the Government would do that, the Guardians might then be compelled to take vigorous action. In conclusion, he would urge upon the House to give practical effect to the sympathy expressed on all sides for the labouring classes.
  COLONEL WARINGsaid, that he did not intend to enter into this discussion had he not been challenged to do so by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sexton) who had just sat down. He thought that his hon. Friend and brother Officer the Member for North Derry (Mr. Mulholland) did, no doubt, owe an apology to the hon. Members below the Gangway for infringing their patents; but it was the intention of himself (Colonel Waring), and those who sat near him, to infringe a good many of the patents those hon. Members had hitherto exclusively looked upon as their own. He had been told that the obstruction that had been given to the operation of the Labourers' Act was by the landlords, as represented by ex officio Guardians. Well, he knew a little about the action of the Boards of

  1829
  Guardians in the North of Ireland, inasmuch as he had been a member of one of them for many years, and had latterly been vice-chairman; and, from the knowledge thus gained, he could say that the obstruction to the operation of the Act of 1885 had come not from the ex officio Guardians, but from the elected Guardians. References had been made to the action of the Ballymena Board of Guardians in regard to the provision of labourers' dwellings. Well, in the Ballymena Union the National League did not hold sway, and he did not think it ever would; but the greatest opponents of these Acts were the elected Guardians, while the most vigorous supporter was Mr. Patrick, who might not be an Irish landlord, but was what hon. Members below the Gangway disliked still more—a highly respected officer of the Orange Association. The hon. Member for Sligo had twitted the Irish Conservative Members with having merely a platonic sympathy for the Irish labourers; but he (Colonel Waring) did not think that the sympathy of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway extended much farther. They talked about the interests of the labourers; but before any warm attention was paid to the claims of labourers they had to produce apiece of paper, showing that they were members of the National League. Not only did he (Colonel Waring) feel sympathy for the Irish labourers, but he thought that sympathy should not be confined to the agricultural labourers alone, but should be extended to the fishermen. Indeed, hon. Gentlemen opposite were not unwilling to go so far; but they did not hear of their sympathy being extended to the weavers. They belonged to districts to which the sway of the hon. Gentlemen he referred to had not extended, and wore, indeed, the most formidable opponents to its extension; and, therefore, they were not to have the benefit of these Acts. His hon. Friend (Mr. Mulholland) had never said, as was imputed to him by the hon. Member for Sligo, that Guardians were being intimidated by the National League into putting these Acts into operation. What his hon. Friend said was that agricultural labourers were intimidated into becoming members of the National League in order that they might obtain the benefit of the Act. He (Colonel
  1830
  Waring) was desirous to promote any legislation which was for the interest of the community generally, and not of the one class who happened to be the present occupants of land. They were a very important class; but there were other classes above and below and around them whose interests had to be fully considered; and he did not think that anyone, except actually existing occupiers, had gained one atom by the recent legislation for Ireland. If he and his Colleagues occasionally expressed an intention to go a certain distance with those hon. Members, it was, at the same time, but natural that they should hesitate to go along that high road which, as they were told on the highest authority, led to destruction. While, therefore, he was ready to facilitate the passage of the Bill through Committee, and hoped the Government would give the requisite facilities for that purpose, ho trusted that something might be done to extend the benefits of its provisions to classes who had not yet been reached by previous legislation on this subject.
  MR. DILLONsaid, ho thought that after the speech just made the discussion might close, for there really did not appear to be any difference of opinion. There were statements made concerning the Labourers' Act which he desired to contradict as a matter of public duty. It had been alleged, for instance, that in the South of Ireland, where it was admitted on all sides that the Acts had been put in force, to a considerable extent, with the approval of the Irish Members, the labourers who desired to put the Act in motion were desired to produce their cards of membership of the National League. He utterly denied that any such system had either their approval or connivance. On the contrary, they utterly discountenanced any such proceeding, although attempts were made by an Association, the Freemasons, who carried on an organized system of I "Boycotting" in regard to those who did not belong to their organization. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland only yesterday; stated that, according to reports that had been sent to him, an attempt was I made to induce the members of the Tipperary Board of Guardians, every man of whom belonged to the National League, to show some favour of that

  1831
  kind, and the attempt was resented as an insult to their Board. The hon. and gallant Member for North Down (Colonel Waring) said, after referring to the action of the Ballymena Board of Guardians, that there was a particular body for which Nationalists entertained even a greater dislike than the landlords of Ireland. Now, although the Irish Catholics had suffered much from the Orange Body, they had not a greater dislike to that Body than they had to the landlords. He (Mr. Dillon) challenged the Orange Members for Belfast to deny that the Catholics voted for them, and helped in the return of the hon. Gentlemen who sat for South Belfast and East Belfast. ["No, no!"] Well, he challenged either of those hon. Members to stand up and deny that the Catholic Nationalists had voted for them at the poll. No; the Nationalists did not hate them, except when they were doing evil; they were ready to support them in every honest effort they made to defend the rights of the Irish people. The hon. and gallant Member also said that the obstruction to the Labourers' Act was mainly given by elected Guardians. Well, if that was true, it was a very strong argument for introducing the National League into Ulster. Wherever the National League existed, the Act was, according to the hon. and gallant Member, put in force; and wherever it did not the contrary was the case. In the portion of the North of Ireland where most complaints were made of the obstruction, there were large numbers of the landlord party in the Unions, both as elected and ex officio Guardians. There seemed to be a determined effort to make an extraordinary misrepresentation to that House. It had been insinuated that the Irish Members desired that the benefits of the Act should be confined to one class of labourers only. The Irish so-called "Loyal; Party"—for it might be a matter of argument which was the real "Loyal Party"—had suddenly woke up to a great amount of zeal in advocating the extending of the benefits of the Act to all classes of labourers. Well, his hon. I Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had sat on a Committee, and endeavoured, day after day, to have those benefits extended to these very classes of labourers and fishermen, and weavers
  1832
  and workers of every class. That fact was perfectly well known to those acquainted with the history of the measure, and the hon. Members above the Gangway appeared to be entirely ignorant of the efforts of the Irish Party on behalf of the labourers of Ireland. For several years the "Loyal Party" never took any interest in the subject; but, now that many of their seats were in imminent danger, they became deeply interested in the cases of the glebe purchasers, because they knew that there wore 300 or 400 of them scattered over the divisions of Tyrone, whose votes would be badly wanted by the Orange Party at the next Election.
  MAJOR SAUNDERSONsaid, that hon. Members below the Gangway were fond of arrogating to themselves the right of initiating all remedial legislation for Ireland; and when they found that Members above the Gangway also I had a duty to perform in regard to legislation and the improvement of the condition of the people of Ireland, hon. Members were good, enough to laugh and sneer derisively at any proposal in that direction. It was undoubtedly true that there were a great many labourers in Ulster, and a considerable number of them voted for the Conservative candidates who now had seats in the House of Commons. But he would remind the hon. Member (Mr. Dillon) that a great number of hon. Members who now represented part of the Ulster population—a considerable number—did not sit in the House of Commons before, and had no opportunity in the past of taking action in the direction they were now inclined to go. Also, he might observe that, on the opening of Parliament, Members below the Gangway had an enormous advantage over himself and his Friends, in that they had all their preparations ready beforehand, and all their Bills prepared. The preparations were made before the Elections took place; and before the Elections it was settled who was to represent certain constituencies, and when he did so what measures he would propose. But Members of the Conservative Party had not the advantage of knowing for certain the result of the election before it took place. They had the disagreeable necessity of applying to the wishes of the electors whom they desired to represent.

  1833
  They did not ascertain from two or three gentlemen, sitting in Dublin, who was to represent certain constituencies in the North. That, of course, gave Members below the Gangway an advantage; but perhaps, in the future, Conservatives would meet them in a similar manner. The hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Dillon) objected to certain statements made in the House, and probably alluded to Questions asked, especially one he (Major Saunderson) asked of the Chief Secretary for Ireland as to the action of the National League. The hon. Member denied, as far as he could understand his speech, that the National League in Ireland had taken the action indicated in that Question. Now the Question asked had reference to a letter written by a Roman Catholic clergyman in Tip-perary, to which he (Major Saunderson) called the attention of Her Majesty's I Government. In his letter the Roman Catholic clergyman said there wore two men, one named Timothy O'Brien— probably a relative of some hon. Member below the Gangway—and another who was called Fitzgerald; and he pointed out that Timothy O'Brien was a member of the National League, and Fitzgerald was not; therefore the Guardians were to vote for O'Brien. The Chairman of the Board said it was a dangerous letter, for it might get into the Press, and if it did it was almost certain to get into the House of Commons; and ho (Major Saunderson) took precious good care it did. Since then there had been another letter from the reverend gentleman, giving an explanation of a peculiar circumstance that cropped up. It appeared that the Rev. Mr. Hennessey signed for both parties, and the Board could not make out the object of the reverend gentleman; but his explanation was that Fitzgerald humbugged him, and represented that he was a member of the League; but afterwards, finding ho was not a member, Mr. Hennessey signed for O'Brien, and hoped he would get the cottage. So much in reference to that Board.
  MR. DILLON: The statement of the hon. Member for North Down that I contradicted was that it was necessary to have a card in order to get a cottage.
  MAJOR SAUNDERSONsaid, that he had another case which he wished to call attention to, that was reported in
  1834
  The Leinster Leader, February 27th. At a meeting of the Athy branch of the National League, the hon. secretary announced that he had received a letter from Mary Doyle, complaining that, though she had sent in a representation to the Athy Guardians for a labourer's cottage, she saw no reference to it in the advertisement of the scheme published in The Leader. The secretary went on to say that he wished to remark, with regard to the state of the labourers in that county, though they seemed to think they could obtain cottages without going through the open door of the League, it was important they should know that the branch would only recommend as tenants of the cottages to the Guardians such as were members of the League. That showed in these two places, and no doubt in hundreds of others, what was the action of the League. What ho wanted to point out was that it was quite clear that in hundreds of places in Ireland an Act passed by the House of Commons for the purpose of alleviating the condition of the Irish labourer was made use of by the organization which was under the immediate direction of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway as a political lever on their part to subjugate the will of the Irish people. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] If that was not the ease, and if hon. Members objected to the action of the National League, why did they not get up and condemn it in public and in the House of Commons?
  MR. DILLON: That is exactly what I have clone over and over again.
  MAJOR SAUNDERSONasked why they did not do so when they went over to Ireland? He quite admitted that hon. Members below the Gangway speaking in Ireland and speaking in the House of Commons wore quite different animals. ["Oh, oh!" and "Shame!"] He would withdraw the word "animals," and say they had a quite different method of speaking and mode of oratory. Why did they not in Ireland say that no difference at all should be made between one Irishman and another in granting the advantages of this Act? With regard to the Amendments proposed in them by the hon. Member (Mr. Mayne), he had to say that he would decidedly support its second reading. What was more, he was quite ready to join in the

  1835
  appeal to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that facility should be given without too much delay for its further discussion and consideration. He knew something about the labouring population, and he was not a new convert to legislation having for its object the protection and alleviation of the condition of the Irish people. He had always supported the Land Bill, and did not regret having done so; and he had always been in favour of advancing, as much, as it was possible to do so, the condition of the Irish labourer, for, in his opinion, he was badly clothed, badly paid, as well as being badly fed. It would be an intense satisfaction to him if, by any action on his part, he could assist in helping him. He was, therefore, ready to support any Bill which was brought in to ameliorate the labourer's condition, and to make him what he believed he could be made—a law-abiding citizen. He would not criticize the subject further; but he would say that if the right hon. Gentleman opposite would give them an early opportunity of discussing the Bill he should be ready to take part in the discussion that might arise, and to suggest any improvement that might be desirable.
  MR. JOSEPH NOLANsaid, he deeply regretted that the hon. and gallant Member who had last addressed the House was not now in his place. He (Mr. Nolan) wished to say that the hon. and gallant Member would remain in his mind as the Gentleman who had the good taste to make a personal attack upon him the very first night he took his seat in the House; and therefore he was not surprised to find that the hon. and gallant Member had had the very questionable taste of referring to Timothy O'Brien as being possibly a relative of some of his (Mr. Nolan's) Colleagues below the Gangway. Knowing the Gentlemen who bore the name of O'Brien in the House and his Colleagues, he thought he could take it upon himself to say that, although he believed that the person in question had not the slightest connection, whether by relationship or otherwise, to any of those Gentlemen, there was not one of them who would think of repudiating any such connection with any honest man, such as he presumed Timothy O'Brien to be. That, however, did not lessen
  1836
  the animus of the remark made by the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh. Another intelligent allusion which the hon. and gallant Member made to himself and Colleagues was that they were animals. Now, they did not at all intend to deny the charge, nor did they at all intend to say that they did not belong to that class of animals that had got a little backbone in them, which the hon. and gallant Gentleman would perhaps find out. The hon. and gallant Member also spoke of himself (Mr. Nolan) and his Colleagues as arrogating to themselves the right of initiating reforms for the Irish people. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman or his Colleagues would only take upon themselves the duty of introducing the reforms necessary in the North of Ireland, he would find that they would obtain every support from the Irish Party. One statement the hon. and gallant Member made was, that there was a great deal of intolerance displayed in Munster, Leinster, and Connaught, by the members of the National League. It was an old saying that people who lived in glass houses should not throw stones; and he would undertake to prove to any hon. Member in the House, no matter to what Party he might belong, that intolerance in its rankest forms was practised by hon. Gentlemen who claimed to represent Ulster in the House.
  MR. SPEAKER: I must point out to the hon. Member that, although he has been allowed, during the earlier part of his speech, to answer some charges which he regarded as personal, he is not now discussing the second reading of the Bill, which is the Question before the House, but is indulging in personal recriminations which have nothing whatever to do with the Bill now before the House.
  MR. JOSEPH NOLANbegged to bow to the ruling of Mr. Speaker; but ho thought that, having listened to those charges made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman above the Gangway, he should have been permitted to say what could be said on the other side, and he was sorry to find that he was mistaken.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order! order! The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to speak of my ruling in that manner. I have said that the charges are matters of personality; and I hold these questions are

  1837
  irrelevant to the Question, which is the proposal that the Bill now before the House be read a second time.
  MR. JOSEPH NOLANsaid, he begged respectfully to submit to the ruling of the Chair; and he would not carry the discussion further in the direction in which he had been proceeding, but deal with the merits of the Bill before the House. He was glad to find that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had announced that ho would not oppose the second reading of the Bill; but he was sorry to find that he was not prepared to grant any facility for its further discussion. One objection to the Bill was based on economy. He would respectfully submit to the right hon. Gentleman that there would be greater economy in providing for the support of a numerous class outside the workhouse rather than inside. A great many labourers were at times forced to take refuge in the workhouse under existing conditions; and if the Bill were carried into law these people would be able to maintain themselves outside. There was nothing which militated against working people's success so much as the want of proper habitations. He hoped, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to see his way to withdraw his objection to affording time for going into Committee.
  MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he rose principally for the purpose of joining in the appeal of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Armagh (Major Saunderson) for an opportunity for further discussion of the Bill in Committee. He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland was not now in the House; but he hoped that some of his Colleagues would inform him of the appeal that was made. He did not wish to enter into any of the painful elements that had been introduced into the discussion; and whilst ho was quite prepared to acknowledge the sincerity of hon. Members below the Gangway in bringing forward that Bill, he, at the same time, in return must ask for similar credit for himself and those near him, in their efforts to realize those objects which it was intended by legislation they should possess. Neither did he wish to refer at any length to the discussion that had already taken place;
  1838
  but he certainly did not understand his hon. Friend the Member for North Derry (Mr. Mulholland) desired to take the course attributed to him. Ho believed his hon. Friend would be quite prepared to consider this measure in Committee, and give it the fullest and most favourable hearing. To a great extent, he (Mr. Macartney) agreed in the defects indicated in the previous Acts. The machinery of the Acts might be greatly improved, though he was not prepared to accept every detail of the Bill, nor did he think it desirable to subject the Bill to a lengthened examination by a Select Committee. For his own part, ho believed that those measures, which were designed to give to the labourers of Ireland what, in so many instances, they were so much in need of—proper house accommodation, necessary sanitary arrangements, and an allotment of ground at a reasonable rent—would not really attain their ends until the right of putting in motion the machinery of the Bill was given to those who wore outside the ratepayers of Ireland. He was very much inclined to give to labourers themselves powers to put in motion the representations that were made, under proper administrations, and subject, of course, to the ratepayers having the right of appeal to the Local Government Board for the purpose of protecting their own interests. There were also one or two other matters that required consideration; but ho would not enter into them upon the present occasion, as the time was rapidly passing. Beyond that it was unnecessary to enter into details, seeing there was a general concurrence of opinion above and below the Gangway. The hon. Member who moved the second reading (Mr. Mayne) in a very moderate speech admitted there was a certain amount of contentious matter in the Bill; and, of course, he was not prepared to give an unqualified assent to all; but, after an opportunity of communicating with his friends in Ireland engaged in administering the Act of 1885, they would be able to give full consideration to the Bill, and, he hoped, a large measure of support. The clauses extending the power of compulsory purchase required the closest attention; and on that and other points he reserved to himself complete liberty of action in Committee. He did not wish to say, at the present moment,

  1839
  that he was going to limit himself to an absolute refusal to consider these matters; but he wished to retain to himself complete freedom of action in Committee upon the Bill. The main object of his rising was to make a strong appeal to Her Majesty's Government to give facilities for the future discussion of a measure which, he believed, would conduce to the benefit not only of the class to which it was specially designed, but of all classes in Ireland.
  MR. DAWSONsaid, that the labourers' dwellings through out Ireland stood sadly in need of considerable improvement. He would therefore appeal to the Government to give the utmost facilities in their power for discussing the details of the Bill, and in bringing it to a successful conclusion, for there was much in it that was deserving of support. In regard to the South of Ireland, he believed, from personal knowledge, that the opposition to the Act of last year by Boards of Guardians came as much from the elective Guardians, and in some cases more, than from the ex officio Guardians. Of course, one Board of Guardians differed from another; but he thought it was an erroneous idea to believe that the ex officio Guardians had any desire to interfere with the agricultural labourers. He also agreed in the advisability of extending the benefit of the Act to other than purely agricultural labourers, as he believed that those who gained their livelihood by fishing were as well entitled to receive the benefit of the Act as those who were engaged in agricultural pursuits.
  MR. DEASYsaid, he believed that further discussion would be utter waste of time; therefore he would not follow the hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. Dawson) upon the question as to how the Act had been worked by Boards of Guardians in the South of Ireland. Had he any desire to do so, he thought he could show by statistics that the Act had been obstructed by a class of people different to those who represented the ratepayers of Ireland; but he would not do so, as he did not wish to introduce any contentious matter. What he desired to do was to contradict the statement made in the House by the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh (Major Saunderson), that the National League availed themselves of the Labourers' Act to annoy the landlords.
  MAJOR SAUNDERSON: I did not say anything of the kind.
  MR. DEASYsaid, that it was said that the National League would not allow the benefit of that Act to any labourer not a member of the National League; and a similar statement was made, some time ago, at Chester in the presence of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, by the gentleman who was known as Chairman of the Defence Association of the South of Ireland, Mr. Smith-Barry, who said that the National League used the Labourers' Act for political purposes in the Cork Union and in other Unions in that county. One of his (Major Saunderson's)greatest friends, Captain Bainbridge, one of the Orange candidates at the recent Election, stated that if Mr. Smith-Barry made such an assertion in regard to the Cork Board of Guardians, it was a he, and that had the effect of drawing from Mr. Smith-Barry a letter, in which he withdrew the imputation. It was merely for the purpose of bringing that matter under the attention of the House, and of showing how groundless were the charges made against the National League organization by its opponents, that he had risen to make these few remarks.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid, he quite agreed with his hon. Friend (Mr. Deasy) in the statement that any further discussion on the principle of the Bill would be waste of time, and he could assure the House he had no intention of further discussing the principle of the Bill. He had merely risen for the purpose of enforcing one point of his hon. Friend's speech as to the misrepresentations of the action of the National League constantly indulged in by Gentlemen holding the views of those above the Gangway; and he would not enlarge further upon that were it not that the charge which was made was a serious matter—namely, that with reference to the alleged action of the National League in intimidating Boards of Guardians to give the cottages to members of the National League only. He wished, with the permission of the House, to call attention to a statement made by the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh himself, which, when proved to be untrue, the hon. and gallant Member did not withdraw. The statement was made on the occasion of a deputation to Lord Salisbury by the Loyal and Patriotic

  1841
  Union, which statement was a specific statement to the effect that the New-bridge National League, which consisted, he said, to a great extent of members of the Board of Guardians, had passed a resolution declaring that the Board of Guardians should not give labourers' cottages to any persons who were not members of the National League. One of his (Mr. Redmond's) hon. Friends and Colleagues, the Representative of Kildare, at once communicated with that branch of the League and with the Board of Guardians. He elicited from the National League a statement that no such resolution was ever proposed or passed; and he elicited from the Board of Guardians, at a meeting at which a well-known Conservative landlord of the county was in the chair, the statement that, so far as they knew, nothing of the kind had occurred, and that in their opinions the hon. and gallant Gentleman ought to withdraw the charge. It was further established that only one member of the Board of Guardians was a member of the National League. In point of fact, the statement of the hon. and gallant Member was proved to be without one tittle of foundation. The hon. Member for Kildare communicated with the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and pointed out to him that the statement was erroneous, and asked him to be manly and fair enough to imitate the action of Mr. Smith-Barry, and withdraw; but the hon. and gallant Member wrote to say he could not withdraw the charge, because, forsooth, ho had seen a statement to its effect in the columns of The Daily Express. [Laughter.] This might seem to many hon. Members a very trivial matter; but it really was not a matter of little importance when statements of this kind were made on English platforms to English people, and when they were believed by the people. He trusted that what had now been said upon this subject would be sufficient to put the point at rest, and sufficient to cause the English people to receive similar statements with caution and reserve.
  MAJOR SAUNDERSONsaid, he wished to ask the permission of the House to make a personal explanation. It was perfectly true that he had made the statement to Lord Salisbury that certain facts had taken place, and when he received the communication from the hon. Member for Kildare he refused to
  1842
  withdraw it, because, as he had informed the hon. Member, it was a statement on which was founded a leading article in The Daily Express. ["Oh, oh!" and laughter.] Hon. Members below the Gangway probably did not read The Daily Express; but he did, and he could not see what other course any public man could take but to found his opinions upon what appeared in the Press, and which had been uncontradicted.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDpointed out that the hon. and gallant Member did not withdraw the statement, which was proved to be incorrect.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

  UNCLAIMED DEPOSITS BILL.
  (Mr. Edmund Robertson, Dr. Clark, Mr. Watt.)
  UNCLAIMED DEPOSITS BILL.

    [BILL 77.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON,in rising to move that the Bill be now read a second time, said: This is a very simple measure. It consists mainly of a single clause, the object of which is to require banking and trading Companies and Associations to keep a register of the unclaimed stock, the unclaimed shares, debentures, and deposits which they may hold, and that the register shall be open to the inspection of all persons interested, during reasonable hours, on payment of a reasonable fee the House will see that I do not propose, on the one hand, to interfere with the business of individuals at all; nor, on the other hand, do I propose any interference with those Departments of the Government which are concerned with unclaimed stock. There are three Departments of the Government to which the principles of this Bill would apply, and to which, to some extent, they are already applied; and perhaps the House will permit me, in illustration of the plan I propose, to refer briefly to those Departments. The first and most important of these is the Chancery Fund. The fund standing in the Court of Chancery is subject to special regulations made by the Lord Chancellor; and, under these regulations, a list of unclaimed sums is practically published once in every three years. I regret to say that the infor-

    1843
    mation so conveyed to the public is not perhaps so full and exhaustive as it might be, and the consequence is that, in some cases, a number of persons make a profitable living out of the mystery which still surrounds these great unclaimed funds. There is, no doubt, considerable room for improvement in the system; but I do not mean to include it in the scope of this Bill. I merely cite what is already done as a precedent and a justification for what I propose to do with regard to private Companies. Another Department of the Government which is also concerned in the principle of this Bill is the National Debt. The provisions regarding the National Debt are exactly those I propose in the present case. By the National Debt Act of 1870, all stock on which dividend has been unclaimed for 10 years is transferred in the books of the Bank of England to the National Debt Commissioners, and immediately afterwards a list is made of the stocks so transferred, which is open to the inspection of the public. That is exactly what I propose to do in regard to private Companies. The third Government Department which is concerned in this proposal, and with which I do not propose to interfere, is the Post Office. There is, no doubt, a considerable amount of money in unclaimed Post Office orders. How the Post Office deals with these I have not been able to find out, for I understand no publication of them is made; but I have been informed by a Post Office official that part of the money, at all events, is used in paying the premiums of insurance policies of the Office. That, no doubt, is an admirable purpose to apply it to; but I have been unable to find out whether the Government make any attempt to hand over these funds to the real owners. I still, however, would like to do so. As I have already said, I shall not propose to meddle with any Government Business; but I confine myself entirely to the case of private associations holding funds under various denominations, the owners of which are not at the moment known. There are two considerations which I venture to urge in support of the principle of the Bill. The first is that there is unquestionably a certain amount of money standing, particularly in banking Companies, but also in trading and other Companies of every kind, the ownership of which has ceased for
    1844
    the moment, the real owners not knowing that the funds are there. I do not for a moment suggest that there is any very enormous amount of money so unclaimed, but some there must be; and so long as no provision is made for the real owners finding out that the money is there, so long must there be a certain amount of injustice. And, what is more important, there will also be a disproportionate feeling in the public mind that this injustice exists. Since this Bill was introduced I have had a considerable amount of correspondence with persons interested in it; and the correspondence goes to convince me that, whatever may be the amount of money which would be affected by the Bill, the amount of feeling which would be affected by it is very considerable indeed. But, in the second place—and I think this is the more important consideration—the amount of mystery and ignorance surrounding this subject is such as to give a profitable livelihood to a class of adventurers who should have no encouragement. These persons find it so profitable to prey upon the cupidity and ignorance of the public in this matter that, in order to do it the more effectively; they can afford to advertise themselves extensively in very expensive newspapers all over the country. One advertisement, which I see almost every day, headed "Enormous fortunes," is now appearing in the newspapers of the country; and in it is stated that £97,500,000 is now lying unclaimed in the Court of Chancery waiting for owners. And then there is given what professes to be a list of persons interested in these enormous sums—a list of which, I suppose, contains every conceivable name—and the people bearing these names are invited to apply to the advertisers for further information. What further information they can give I do not know; but I know from inquiry at the office of the Paymaster General that instead of £97,000,000 lying unclaimed in Chancery, as they announce, there is not more than £1,000,000, the real ownership of which is not known. One of the great and good results of the proposed measure would be that the adventurers who are now preying in this way on the ignorance of the people will have their proceedings brought, to some extent at all events, to an end. A remarkable story found its way into the newspapers a week ago, to the effect that a labourer

    1845
    of the name of Robson, whose place of abode was given as Hexham, bad succeeded, through one of these agencies, in getting out of the Chancery Fund a fortune of £2,50,000. That is a very old and familiar paragraph—a sort of family friend of newspapers. I believe that it appeared 20 or 30 years ago, probably earlier; and why the newspapers did not recognize its age I cannot really imagine. I should like to recount a slight personal experience of my own. Some time ago I was in the United States of America, and there my professional aid was several times solicited on behalf of claims to what is well known as the Lawrence Townley estate. That estate, as it exists in the imagination of the American people, consists of £100,000,000, part of which is represented by land in England, and part by gold lying in the Bank. The estate has been lying vacant for 100 years, and there are very few people in the United States who do not suppose that, somehow or other, they have a claim on it. The claimants, indeed, are so numerous that, in order to relieve the burden of fighting their claims, they have formed a Limited Liability Company, which has been in existence for a good many years. The Company has Directors, and, of course, it has lawyers; but, although it has more than once levied assessments, as yet I have not been able to find that it has paid any dividend. These are examples of the myths which arise from facts being kept secret which I wish to he disclosed. I have been told that one of the effects of this Bill will be to disclose unclaimed stocks, which have been allowed to remain unclaimed, because they have belonged to traders who have passed through the Bankruptcy Court. I do not know whether that is so or not; but if it is so, that is an additional reason why the system I propose should be adopted by the House the Bill, I am glad to say, is unopposed. I have not heard any imputation upon the soundness of the principle it contains; but I may say that the Homo Secretary had occasion to discuss the question during his recent contest in Edinburgh, and, to my great surprise, I find he speaks of the principle as being not a very sound one, but as partaking of the character of grand motherly legislation. I am as much, if not more, opposed to grandmotherly legislation as the right hon. Gentleman; but all I propose to
    1846
    do is to extend a little further one of the clauses of the Companies Act of 1862,; and make the register, which it is the duty of the Companies to keep, include the shares, debentures, and deposits whose owners have not turned up for a certain number of years, and how that can be open to the objection of grandmotherly legislation I am entirely at a loss I to conceive. It may be that the proposal the right hon. Gentleman discussed in Edinburgh was of a different nature from that which I have been explaining. My Bill requires Companies to do for their unclaimed debts that which Government does for their unclaimed debts, and which Companies themselves have had to do with reference to their ordinary share capital under the Act of Parliament by which they are constituted. I trust the Bill, of which I now move the second reading, will receive the approval of the House.
    MR. J. WILSON,in seconding the Motion, said, he thought the end aimed at was extremely laudable, and that the machinery by which the Bill proposed to carry out its object was extremely simple. He agreed with the hon. Member in saying that the amount of unclaimed deposits supposed to be lying in the banks was very much exaggerated in the public mind; but be that as it might, it appeared to him right and proper that the amount should be known, and a periodical publication in the manner indicated would greatly alleviate anxiety, and give information when required. He hoped that the House would assent to the second reading of the Bill without further discussion.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Edmund Robertson.)
    MR. GREGORYsaid, ho thought the; penalties imposed by the Bill were enormous. Therefore the House would; do well to pause before assenting to the second reading of the Bill, which, in his opinion, if brought into practical operation, instead of decreasing, would increase the opportunities for levying black-mail.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. D. ACLAND)said, he could not speak with much authority regarding the Bill; but there were defects in the operative clauses which were apparently of a very serious nature,

    1847
    and with regard to which, at any fate, the Government were anxious to have some time to answer what course they ought to pursue. In the fourth line of the 2nd clause unclaimed stock, shares, debentures, and deposits, were spoken of; but no reference was made to dividends. A man might have a right to dividends, and he did not see how they could include the four classes of property enumerated in the Bill, and omit all reference to dividends. Then, again, there was the objection which had been referred to, that it was provided that the register was to be open to the inspection of all persons, and that that inspection was not to be limited to persons interested in any way. That seemed to him to present a very serious objection; because this unlimited opening of the registers would open the door to every sort of adventurers, who might desire to use the information for ulterior objects of their own. However, he felt he could not speak with sufficient authority on the subject to assume the responsibility, on behalf of the Government, of resisting the Bill. If, however, the second reading was agreed to, he must ask that any further proceedings might be deferred until such time as the Government could consider what course they would take.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, he thought there was much force in what had fallen from the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) in considering that the Bill was open to considerable objection, and that the very objects the hon. Member had in view would be imperilled if it passed; whilst it would inflict a hardship on Companies, in rendering them liable to heavy penalties without notice. The Bill gave persons who had no connection whatever with a Company the right of inspection of the proposed register at a nominal fee, which he thought was too low. Again, the penalty of £2 a-day was very high. If the Directors of a Company were unaware of this Bill, and omitted to keep such a separate register, the Company would find itself liable to a very heavy fine for an offence of which it was quite unconscious. He did not like to do anything that would seem ungracious in the matter, and if it were the feeling of the House to pass the second reading he would not object; but he hoped if the second reading was
    1848
    passed that ample time would be given to consider the Bill further, and that he should receive some assurance from the hon. Member that he would reconsider those points in Committee.
    MR. H. W. WESTsaid, he was of opinion that the Bill should not be allowed to pass a second reading, and regretted that none of the Law Officers of the Government were present to give their views regarding it. If carried into law, its provisions would lead to a set of adventurers going the round, and finding out the names in which unclaimed dividends or stocks stood, and the number of advertisements for claimants would be increased rather than diminished.
    MR. CROMPTON,in supporting the second reading, said, reference had been made to the hardship of Companies having to keep these registers declaring the property which was in their hands and which did not belong to them; but it was a much greater hardship that the persons entitled to such property should be without the means of discovering it. Not only that, but if it would be a very arduous task for Companies to keep a register of such shares—they must have a large amount of property in their hands without an owner. There ought to be some way by which these Companies should be bound to make public the amount of property they had in their hands, and the owners of which could not be found; and the Bill dealt, to a certain extent, with that great difficulty. He should like to see the Bill go a great deal further. It seemed to him that if a Railway Company was notable to find out to whom dividends should be paid that ought to be published yearly in the accounts of the Railway Company. If the Bill was read a second time, he would, in Committee, introduce a clause providing that wherever the person to whom dividends were due could not be found there should be a year-by-year register, in which these unclaimed dividends should appear. All reason was in favour of some such scheme as that, though there might be some alterations in Committee. He was obliged to his hon. Friend who had introduced the Bill for having brought forward a great public grievance. He hoped the House would accept it; in his idea it had only one defect, that it did not go far enough.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 107; Noes 88: Majority 19.—(Div. List, No. 15.)
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Tuesday next.

  COAL MINES REGULATION ACT (1872) AMENDMENT BILL.— [Bill 108.]
  (Mr. Arthur O'Connor, Mr. T. P. O'Connor.)
  COAL MINES REGULATION ACT (1872) AMENDMENT BILL.— [Bill 108.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, its object was to protect the lives of workmen in coal mines, and also to enable them to guard their own interests by having officials who should be independent altogether of the control of the mineowner. The first proposal in the Bill had reference to the check-weigher, and provided that in future the check-weigher should be appointed by a majority of the workmen, and should really be the independent representative of the workmen. In the 18th section of the Act it was provided that the person appointed as check-weigher must be in the employment of the owner of the mine. What was wanted by this Bill was that the check-weigher should be altogether independent of the influence which the mineowner would bring to bear on a person in such a position. He proposed that the appointment by the men should be only after a meeting, duly convened after the usual notice had been exhibited at the place where such notices were generally placed. In certain cases, he was given to understand, it would be inconvenient to have such a regulation, as most of the meetings were convened by word of mouth; but, in regard to a small matter of that kind, he should be glad to accept any modification that might appear good to the House. Next, he wished to secure that the mines should be inspected monthly. At present the inspection of mines was certainly not what it ought to be; for they were practically seldom inspected until after some terrible accident had occurred. The Inspectors had the right to carry on such a system of inspection as should secure reasonable precautions against accidents and loss of life; but, as a matter of fact, the inspection of mines was not, as he had said, by any means what
    1850
    it should be; and everyone concerned with mining must feel that some such provision was necessary in order to meet the reasonable expectations of the men. The proposal in the Bill was not precisely that made by the miners themselves. As he was aware, the Miners' Conference in Birmingham, assembled in Council on January last, recommended that the inspection should be made every three months. Of course, it was very plain that if they insisted on the inspection of every mine in the country every month they would have materially to increase the staff of Inspectors, which would involve a considerable expense. The question of expense, however, ought to be no bar to a salutary change; and it might be easy to devise an arrangement, according to which only those mines specially reported to require frequent inspection would be inspected once a month. Many experienced miners said that there ought to be no practical difficulty in the inspection of each mine once a month; and the only difficulty, therefore, appeared to be that of expense in the appointment of additional Inspectors; and as to that, it would be better to expend a large amount in order to prevent calamities such as occurred from time to time, involving what was considered to be a preventible loss of life. Then he wished to secure the assent of the House to a modification of the Act of 1872, with regard to what was known as dangerous working places—as, for instance, a place where there was likely to be an interruption of ventilation and an accumulation of gas through a fall of the roof. By the Act it was provided that in places where there was dangerous accumulation of gas no lamp or light should be used other than a locked safety lamp. He wished to provide that in what was known as fiery mines no light other than the locked safety lamp should be used in any working where it might appear that a temporary derangement of the means of ventilation might occur, and that such working should be deemed a dangerous working place. The next proposal was that the men should not be treated in a way that at present smacked very much of the old tally system. In many mines in the far north there was an established practice, on the part of employers, of keeping in their own hands a sum equal to a miner's week's wages, which

    1851
    the men called "lying" money; and if the men needed money they were obliged to ask for advances, which were made at a considerable interest. The men were bled in a very unfair manner by the making of these so-called advances while money was owing to them; and the Bill proposed to put a stop to the withholding of the wages that were due, and that where advances were made no money should be charged for such advances. By the next clause he proposed that the Weights and Measures Act of 1878 should apply to all mines, and to repeal the Saving Clause, which had hitherto permitted the use of "the measures and gauges ordinarily used in such mines." This was necessary to assure the men from many a loss, which at present they had to complain of, by reason of the irregularity of the standard of measurement. The last clause in the Bill was that which proposed that firemen should be examined and certificated by Inspectors. The duties of firemen in regard to the lives of hundreds of thousands of men employed in mines could hardly be overestimated in respect of their responsibility, or the immense danger that might occur by their negligence or want of qualification; and, therefore, he proposed that every fireman should be recognized as qualified, and be certificated by an Inspector. This might not be a comprehensive measure, but it dealt with points on which legislation was urgently needed, and he hoped it would receive the assent of the House. He moved the second reading of the Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)
    MR. TOMLINSON,in moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said, he did not deny that there were matters in the Bill with which it was desirable Parliament should deal, and that there were matters in the Act which eminently called for modification. He doubted, however, whether the hon. Member (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) was sufficiently versed in the subject; and it was hardly possible, he thought, for one Member to combine in himself the qualifications necessary for dealing with every subject; but, above and beyond that, there was now before the House a Bill by the late Home Secretary (Sir R.
    1852
    Assheton Cross), who was peculiarly able to deal with this subject, which, if it did not contain all the matters which the Bill of the hon. Member did, could easily be amended in that direction, if it was thought desirable. His great objection to the Bill was as to the manner in which it was framed. It professed to be a Bill amending the Mines Regulation Act. It dealt with several subjects that formed the subject-matter of that Act; but it did not deal with them by way of specific Amendments, and laid down new regulations without explaining how far they were intended to amend the present Act, or how far they were to be new provisions in addition to them. The force of that observation would appear on a consideration of Clause 2, dealing with the appointment of check-weighers. He was not prepared to say that they could possibly leave the matter as it stood now; but that was a subject which was dealt with in the Bill of the late Home Secretary. The hon. Member proposed that the check-weighers should be appointed by a majority of all the workmen; but there were at every mine a number of men who were not paid according to the output, and under the Bill these men might attend the meetings and vote, although they were not in any way affected by the check-weigher's duties. He was certain a clause of this kind would give rise to all sorts of difficulties. He suggested that any such provision should be by way of amendment of the Act, as was proposed in the Bill of his right hon. Friend the late Home Secretary. His next objection to the Bill was to the proposal to examine the mines at least once a month. He could hardly imagine anything more fatal to a proper inspection of mines than a rigid rule of that kind. Such a proposal was not the way to secure satisfactory inspection; and he thought hon. Members who represented the miners were perfectly conscious of that. It was not at all true that Inspectors only inspected mines after accidents had taken place. What he would suggest was this—that if an Inspector was worth anything he ought to know what mines required to be watched with strictness and what mines could be dealt with more leniently. He believed the proposed periodical inspection would do more harm than good, because it must necessarily diminish the responsi-

    1853
    bility of mining managers; and as to the practice of holding wages back during what the hon. Member called 'lying time," it certainly did not exist in Lancashire. The proper mode of securing efficient inspection was to secure thoroughly competent Inspectors, who should be left to carry out the inspection, subject to proper rules framed at the Home Office. He did not think it was necessary to deal with the question of ventilation, because the matter was already adequately safeguarded; and the point intended to be guarded against by this Bill was really provided for by the Act. He also objected to the provision that no firemen should be appointed without a certificate of qualification. The last clause of the Bill showed that its author was not familiar with the subject. He doubted the value of the extension of the system of certificates to persons holding minor offices. He asked the House to reject the Bill, on the ground that it was not a carefully-framed measure calculated to carry out the objects aimed at.
    COLONEL BLUNDELL,in seconding the Motion for the rejection of the Bill, said, the object in view was safety; but he believed the measure would have an exactly opposite effect, because it substituted for the responsibility of the manager, who was resident on the spot and was constantly there, the responsibility of the Inspector making a fitful inspection once a month. He thought, however, the number of Inspectors ought to be increased, because many of them had districts which were too large. The coal mines of this country were a terminable annuity, and an annuity which was terminating at an ever-increasing rate; and it was very important that the Inspectors should have a complete knowledge of their districts, so that they might know what coal was wasted, and thereby lost to the nation. Therefore, he thought there should be an inspection of all mines once a year; but the proposal to have them inspected once a month would make mining in this country perfectly unsafe. He hoped when the Mining Commission reported working with naked lights would not be allowed in any mine of a kind that could be regarded as fiery. The proposal that firemen should pass an examination was unnecessary—that should be with the manager. He considered that the Bill
    1854
    ought not to be passed, because such clauses as were beneficial were contained in the measure which was going to be brought forward by the late Home Secretary, and what remained ought not to be touched till the Royal Commission upon Mines had made its Report.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    MR. J. WILSON (Houghton-le-Spring)said, that as one of the Members representing the opposite side to the hon. Member who had moved the rejection of the measure he thought he might say a few words, and add something, not, perhaps, of so eloquent a nature as those who had preceded him, but of a practical nature at least to the discussion. He belonged to a class (the miners) which had received very large benefits from the Mines Regulation Act of 1872. They recognized the worth of that Act, and had felt its benefits. Still, at the same time, being acquainted with its working, they were able from their position to realize the defects in it. The necessity for the amendment of that Act was, he thought, very apparent. They considered that the number of accidents still taking place in their mines—accidents not arising so much from explosions, but arising from the every-day occurrences due to unskilful and neglectful operations—was too large. The hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt) had given a number of statistics of the accidents which had taken place in their mines for 10 years ending 1884; and he found from that Return that the total number of men who had been killed by these accidents was no less than 11,165. The percentage was as follows:—41 per cent of these deaths resulted from falls—every-day occurrences; 22 per cent were caused by explosions; and 36 per cent were miscellaneous accidents. He thought that was an appalling fact taking place in their midst, and one sufficient of itself to induce hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House to devote their minds to the amendment of this Act in order to secure the safer working of the mines. He was very much obliged, as a miner, to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Donegal (Mr.

    1855
    Arthur O'Connor) who had introduced this Bill. He was only sorry that his learning and aptitude to take hold of the general working of the Mines Regulation Act was not backed by the advantage—which, he admitted, might have been somewhat hardly acquired—of having worked for two or three years in a mine himself, in order that he might have been better acquainted with the technicalities of the subject. But he felt sure of this—that the miners of the country and their cause, through his advocacy and the advocacy of all those who had taken up the subject, would be far better known and appreciated than they had been, and that they would not be looked upon as a sort of "bugbear," as they now sometimes were by men who were ignorant of them. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would forgive him, however, if he ventured to point out one or two facts in order to show that the Bill did not go as far as the miners would like it to go. He was at one with him in the distance which the Bill went in relation of check-weighmen. What it sought to give them was perfectly just. All they asked was that the man who weighed the materials the production of which formed the miners' living should be their servant; that they should have the providing of him and the judging of him. As it was at present, this man must be amenable to the firm, and might be discharged, as men had over and over again been discharged, for very frivolous causes. He ventured to think that if the hon. Gentleman who moved the rejection of the Bill (Mr. Tomlinson) were to become a member of the Union of which he was a member, and would take part in that Union, and give them the benefit of his learning, he would find he was quite outside with regard to the way and the manner in which he looked at this point.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, that he did not object to the principle of that portion of the Bill. He only maintained that the form in which it was dealt with in the Bill of the late Home Secretary was better, and that that form had better be adhered to.
    MR. J. WILSONsaid, he had not the slightest doubt that if a man took a child under his care he would consider that that child was the best. He had no hesitation in saying that he thought the proposal before them was the better of
    1856
    the two. But the Bill did not go far enough in that direction. He held that a law which governed a man in his work ought not, legally, at any rate, to govern him when away from that work. The House would scarcely credit it that in this country, which was noted for law and justice, a check-weighman had been turned away from his work, and the miners deprived of the services of a man whom they trusted, simply because he went where he had no right to go—namely, into the manager's garden, and took away two apples. He was not at one with the hon. Member in his proposal for the inspection of mines once a month. He had worked in the pits. The last work he did in the pit was as a pit Inspector, and he could assure the House that it took a week to carefully examine that mine as it should be done. Therefore, he thought that a period of a month was rather too short a lapse of time between one inspection and another. But he agreed with the general principle of the proposal. He should wish now to add a few items which he would like to see incorporated into any measure that was brought forward. He would like the Bill to prohibit entirely the employment of all women either in or about mines. He had no doubt that civilized and sensitive ears—those of men touched with humanity, who were not acquainted with the working of mines—would be astounded when he said that there was in one county alone—that of Lancashire—working about the mines, doing work fit only for the muscular and strong hands of men, no less than 1,172 women. He believed that it was a woman's place to do much more delicate work than that. As a workman speaking on behalf of workmen, he said that no Act would be complete which did not prohibit entirely the employment of female labour in this obnoxious work. The charge of taxing the earnings of the men he was glad to say did not apply to Durham and Northumberland. He thought it only fair to say that he did not know a single instance of this kind happening in those parts; but if it were done he thought that any Bill which was passed should prohibit the practice, especially remembering that the owner usually had a week's money lying on his hands. Another thing which was important was this. They wanted in any new Mines Act that might

    1857
    be passed the appointment of a Minister of Mines. If he was not detaining the House with his maiden speech—as he was passing through the baptism of oratory which all of them would have to in this new Parliament—he would like to say this, that the mines of this country wore becoming very gigantic enterprizes; and with all deference to Home Secretaries, past, present, or future, he held that the man who had the charge and inspection of mines should be one who did not need instruction from miners, but who was technically instructed himself. With regard to providing further against the risks peculiar to mining operations, he believed that there were mines in the country where it was not safe to use gunpowder. There had been cases where explosions had been traced clearly to the shot fired; and he, therefore, thought the time had arrived when the science of the country should be devoted perhaps a little less to the arts of warfare, and more to the peaceful application of its resources to the safety of life, and to providing some means whereby the production of the coal which was so necessary to life should be as safe as possible. If the second reading of the Bill was passed, he had no doubt that in Committee the amendments he had suggested would be incorporated; and if the Government took upon themselves to bring in a measure, he hoped they would see that the propositions brought forward by the miners were reasonable, and such as ought to be accepted.
    MR. SETON-KARRsaid, he had not had the advantage of working in a mine, like the hon. Member (Mr. J. Wilson), nor did he claim to have an intimate knowledge of this subject; but his constituency contained a good number of colliers, and having taken the trouble to ascertain their views, he had come to the conclusion that they had many solid grievances which ought to be redressed, and which the Bill would do something to remedy. With regard to check-weighers, miners undoubtedly suffered a great deal, and he agreed with the effort being made to introduce fresh arrangements in regard to them. As to the other clauses of the Bill, the hon. Member who introduced the measure (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) had himself admitted that they wore somewhat crude, and did not meet the necessities of the case. Monthly inspection would cause
    1858
    considerable expense, and therefore he suggested that the inspection should be quarterly, except in the case of dangerous mines. He agreed with the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. J. Wilson) as to the inadvisability of employing women at all in mines. There was one point which had been entirely omitted in the discussion which was of serious interest to the miners, and that was that the relatives and those connected with the colliers killed in accidents in the mines should be allowed to appear before the Coroner and make statements, in order that the proper verdicts might be arrived at. He conceived it was quite open to hon. Members of the House to support the principle of the Bill, even while they wished to introduce Amendments; and it was in that spirit that he desired to support the second reading. Ho trusted the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. J. Wilson) and the other hon. Members who represented mining constituencies, would believe that there were many of the occupants of the Opposition Benches who were as desirous as any of advocating the claims of men who were following such a dangerous and hazardous occupation as that of a coal miner.
    MR. PICKARDsaid, as far as he understood the Bill, it commanded his approval and support. In the past there had been much difficulty ill appointing and keeping check-weighers, who were frequently removed from their posts through endeavouring to do their duty by the men. For most trivial causes they had been taken before magistrates and dealt with summarily. Some owners gave perfect liberty of meeting to their colliers; others did all they could to prevent meetings. In one case it was desired to call a meeting at the pit's mouth—a practice to which many proprietors and managers did not object, but which others did all they could to prevent. The check-weigher, not being at liberty to call the men together verbally, stuck one notice on his back and another on his breast, stating that the meeting was to be held. This was considered an instance in which the weighman had "otherwise misconducted himself," and he had to leave and seek work elsewhere. What the men wanted was to be in a position to get the men they wanted to do their work as check-weighers at the pit bank, so that the manager might not have the power to

    1859
    prevent them selecting whom they liked for the pit bank, whether they were employés of the said colliery or not. A case was tried at Chesterfield in which the men contended for this right. The question was fully raised, but the result was that the men lost the day. The miners wanted to be represented by a man who would see that justice was done to all concerned by looking after the weight, and preventing undue deductions from the men's wages. The deductions which the masters' weighers might make from the totals of the men's gettings were a very serious matter, and there were collieries in which the deductions had amounted to 7,000 tons a-year. In some cases the men had very little power indeed to protect themselves against wrongful deductions. Then, in regard to inspection, he was one of those who thought there ought to be more inspection than they had at the present time; but there could not be more with the present number of Inspectors. In Yorkshire there were only three Inspectors for 422 mines, and it was impossible for them to properly visit these mines if they were ceaselessly occupied night and day, and had clerical duties to perform and inquiries to attend; but he was glad to be able to add that the work that was done was very well done, and there was nothing to complain of. But there ought to be more Inspectors, and they ought to be able to pay surprise visits, without sending notice to managers or anyone else. He did not believe that inspection could be worth much when it was known when it was to take place, and at stated times. The inspections should take place without either the owners or the managers of mines knowing when they were about to be held. The instructions that were issued by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross), when he was at the Home Office in 1872, had produced the best results. The clause of this Bill relating to dangerous places was, he believed, unnecessary, because the case was provided for by the Act of 1872. The system of withholding wages and lending money on interest did not prevail in Yorkshire, and he should have liked to have heard where it was done. He approved of the Weights and Measures Clause. The utmost difficulty was found in getting Inspectors of Weights and Measures to go
    1860
    to collieries to inspect the machines and test them. At present, most of the Inspectors of Weights and Measures stated that they had no power to go to the machines on the pit banks and examine and test them under the Act of 1872; but this was a mistake—that Act did give them power in that necessary direction. He knew from correspondence with the Board of Trade that the Inspectors of Weights and Measures had such powers under the Act of 1872. There were, however, only a few mine owners who willingly submitted their weighing machinery to inspection; and he thought he might mention in that hall—he begged pardon, in that Assembly—the name of Mr. Superintendent Hall, of Wakefield, who did his duty without being asked or compelled to do so. It often happened when gas abounded in mines that it was not reported, and when explosions took place the hidden dangers from the gaseous mines were never brought to light. There were certain mines which were well known to be dangerous mines, where one would not be allowed to carry a small naked light. He considered that in all mines there should be employed day by day duly qualified and competent overmen and firemen to examine them; and the overman or fireman, whether of a mine, or of a given district in a mine, should be a man competent to write out his own report and sign it, and so be responsible to the manager of the mine for it. The miners also wanted a change in the certificated manager, so that he might be free of some agent placed above him—some controlling power who required the manager to manage the mine in accordance with his wishes and instructions. The certificated manager of a mine ought to be made responsible for what was carried out in it. Then the under manager should have a second class certificate, and be held responsible for what took place under his direction; but the second class certificated manager not to be considered the certified manager of the mine. In some mines it was usual to use extreme caution, especially in regard to small lights, which were not allowed unprotected in those mines; yet it was very curious that while those naked lights were not permitted in such mines, shots were often fired which caused a flame of 30 yards in length. They required blasting in all such mines

    1861
    prohibited, and if anyone violated the Act of Parliament a common informer should be allowed to take up the case, as under the present Act the workmen could not initiate any prosecution, whilst the colliery owner and manager could do so without the sanction or intervention of the Home Secretary. The mine owner could proceed against any miner whom he liked, and the miners ought to be put upon the same footing as their employers in this respect. Again, the miners wanted power to enter the Coroner's Court, and not be subject to the permission of the Coroner. The Coroners very often insulted the miners when they attended their Courts. Their duty was to attend the Coroners' Courts, and so help, in giving evidence, to bring about a knowledge of the true cause of death, which was a public duty. In conclusion, he would say that he agreed with many portions of the Bill now under discussion, but it did not go far enough in the directions he had indicated. He trusted that the Government would take up the whole question, with the intention of dealing with it at as early a day as possible. That being so, he hoped that there would be no division on the Bill, and that the hon. Member (Mr. Tomlinson) would not persist with his Amendment.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he had introduced a Bill of his own relating to the same subject, but he did not look with the smallest jealousy on the Bill now under consideration. On the contrary, he looked upon the hon. Member (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) who brought it forward as a fellow-worker in the same cause, and he should be glad to cooperate with him in order to secure the safety of those who were engaged in this dangerons occupation in the working of the mines. They had heard two speeches from hon. Gentlemen who had been engaged in mines, and with whom he sympathized very much. In regard to the use of blasting powder, especially in dangerous mines, that was a question which interested him extremely when he was at the Home Office, and he made a great many inquiries about it. But he found at that time that the opinion of the Inspectors and of the men themselves was very much divided, on the point. In consequence of that division of opinion, he had applied to the Royal Society for the opinion of
    1862
    scientific experts, and a Commission appointed by it had been considering the subject for the last six or seven years. They promised him before he left Office that the Report should be shortly placed in his hands; and he engaged when he had an opportunity of studying it to carry out its object as soon as possible. The matter had now passed into other hands; but when the Report was presented, on that point and also as regarded an improved mode of lighting mines, he promised the Government his hearty support of any measure framed in accordance with the recommendations of the Commission. He hoped there would not be any measure of a drastic kind until the Report was presented, which might be this week or next. The Government might say if they were going to introduce a Bill that the other Bills ought to be withdrawn. He was of a different opinion. When the Government Bill was introduced there might be a good deal of discussion upon it, and when there was a question with which they could deal shortly and simply it would be very dangerous to put off a settlement. The inconvenience of having a great many Bills on the same subject during the same Session was as nothing compared with the loss which might follow if the chance of settling some important point was missed. He sympathized with all that had been said about check-work, and he also had some provision in his Bill for dealing with the matter. He entirely agreed with those who held that inspection ought to be frequent, and that the Inspector ought to come without notice, so that the owner should not be able to make any alteration in consequence of expecting the Inspector's immediate arrival. But he did not think there should be a monthly inspection. The country would not consent to have such an army of Inspectors as would then be required, and the work would not be done so effectually. Only a month before he left Office he tried to induce the Inspectors to have more inspections. He knew the miners were very anxious that the managers should have certificates, and that was a point well worthy of discussion in Committee. He should be very glad to see precautions taken to secure the services of proper and efficient men to carry out the important duties of firemen. Ho hoped the Government would allow this Bill

    1863
    to be read a second time. [Mr. BROADHURST dissented.] What the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Broadhurst) meant by that shake of the head, he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) did not know; but for his own part he should certainly vote for the second reading; and he hoped the Government would do so also, for they could have no reason to oppose it, unless they had a Bill of their own of a larger scope, and, if so, he hoped the House would hear of it this afternoon. Besides, all knew how crowded the Order Book became later in the Session, and they ought to take advantage of the present time, and not lose this bird which they had in their hands for two in the bush. He hoped he would not be out of Order in suggesting that they should read this Bill a second time before a quarter to 6, when discussion must cease, and then allow his own Bill (the Coal Mines Bill), which stood on the Orders, and which also dealt with another branch of the subject, and one which he considered very important, to be read a second time.
    SIR JOSEPH PEASEsaid, he thought it was unfortunate that the hon. Member for Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) had not made the Bill apply to metallic mines as well as coal mines; but he (Sir Joseph Pease) had no doubt it was competent so to amend the Bill in Committee that that omission would be remedied. He sometimes thought that people did not sufficiently reflect what the figures with respect to accidents in mines meant. The Bill was intended to help that which many of them interested in mines were very anxious to secure—the protection of the miners in the pursuance of an arduous and almost necessarily dangerous calling. The hon. Member for Durham (Mr. J. Wilson) had referred to a number of fatal accidents in coal mines. It was his (Sir Joseph Pease's) lot once to be present at one of those colliery accidents, and any sight more appalling it was impossible to conceive. When you stood at the pit's top and saw body after body handed over to the poor mourners, and witnessed the wounded handed over to the doctors, it was one of the most distressing scenes that could possibly be imagined. Those were the accidents which it was their duty most carefully to guard against. The Bill before the
    1864
    House went some way in that direction, and it was the duty of the House to help forward that object in every way. As regarded the check-weighmen, he thought the House would certainly sympathize with the desire of the miners that the check-weighers should be absolutely their servants. It was not the miners' interest to have a bad check-weighman. Their interest was to choose an honest man. He had some experience in these matters, and he must say that the instances in which complaints had been made against check-weighmen were very rare. He maintained that it was the duty of the miners to choose for that office the most honest man they could find; and if it happened afterwards that he did not give satisfaction, they ought to be able to remove him and put another man in his place who would do his duty honestly. If the hon. Member who brought in the Bill had a little more practical knowledge of the subject ho would not have suggested once-a-month inspection. A great deal had been said about inspection; but he thought it would be a mistake to relieve the mine owners themselves of all responsibility in this matter. While there should be full inspection and every effort made to insure the safety of the miners, he held that nothing could be more dangerous than to leave everything to the Inspector. There were many hundreds—he might say thousands—of men who were able to be their own Inspectors; but in saying that he did not mean that they should do away with the Government inspection, which was, of course, a very good thing, and he (Sir Joseph Pease) was in favour of it provided it did not go too far and relieve the miners of all responsibility. As an illustration of how the miners might be relied on to exercise their own judgment with regard to the safety of the mine in which they might happen to be employed, the hon. Baronet cited the ease of a number of miners declining to go down into a pit on the ground of its dangerous condition. On that occasion the men were proved to be perfectly right. It was that sense of responsibility that he wished to retain. With respect to payment of wages, he considered that, as a matter of fact, all wages were due at the end of the day on which the labour was done, and any other system of payment was a matter

    1865
    of mutual arrangement. Then, as to Coroners' Courts, he strongly urged that the representative of the deceased miners should be allowed to be present at the inquiry. Evidence of a very important character affecting the lives and limbs of the miners was often elicited at these inquiries. As regards the Report of the Royal Commission to which the late Home Secretary (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had referred, he (Sir Joseph Pease) trusted that they would not have to wait for the Government measure, which might not be produced for years. The best thing for the House to do would, in his opinion, be to accept the present Bill, and remedy in Committee any imperfections that might now disfigure it.
    MR. FENWICKsaid, he was glad to see, on both sides of the House, such a desire to amend the Mines Regulations Act of 1872. For his own part, he might be allowed to express his personal thanks to those hon. Members present who had taken part in the passing of the Act of 1872; and he would beg also to express his thanks for the class to whom he had the honour to belong—namely, the mining class of the community—especially for two very important provisions that were inserted in that measure. The first provision was that referring to the ago at which children were permitted to be employed in mines. For his own part, he began to work in the mine at the age of nine years, and only left it when it was the will of the constituency that he should be returned as their Representative at St. Stephen's. The other provision to which he alluded was that which gave to the miners the power to examine and inspect the mines for themselves, so that they might be assured, as far as it was possible to be assured, that due regard was had to the safety of life and limb by the management. However, as time rolled on, it was found that the Act, though excellent in many points, was yet defective in others, and he was glad to think that even the late Home Secretary (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had acknowledged that the Act contained many anomalies which he was endeavouring to remove by a Bill of his own. The object which he (Mr. Fenwick) had in view in rising was—seeing that there was a generally expressed desire to amend the Act of 1872—to urge that the Government should
    1866
    give the House some information as to their views, and the attitude they intended to assume, not only towards the measure now before the House, but in regard to the Bill of the late Home Secretary. That right hon. Gentleman now admitted that it would be a wise thing if the Government would give the House the assurance that the Act of 1872 should now be amended. What he (Mr. Fenwick) wanted to know was, whether or not the Government were prepared to take the two Bills as the basis of a comprehensive measure? He was confident, if the matter could be fairly and properly talked over, the Government might produce a measure that would satisfy both sides of the House, and give general satisfaction to the mining community.
    SIR HUSSEY VIVIANsaid, he was not one to talk out the Bill, for he entirely approved of it as a whole, and the sooner the existing defects were remedied the better. He thought it would be impossible to inspect mines monthly, as it would require quite an army of Inspectors to perform the duty. He considered that it was out of the question to lay down a hard-and-fast line that an inspection should take place once a month. Then, the use of powder was an extremely difficult question, on which there were many opinions, and the working miners themselves were as much at variance in their opinions on this question as other people. He referred, in proof of his assertion, to a deputation of minors from his own county, the members of which were opposed to the abolition of the use of powder, and he argued from this that a good deal of information was required to be collected upon this point before any satisfactory legislation thereon could take place. He hoped that the Report of the Royal Commission, when it came to be issued, would give some information on this subject which would be of a valuable character. As to the question of certifying firemen, he looked upon it as much more important that firemen should be practical men rather than scientific men; but this was a point which he thought might be dealt with without any great difficulty. As to the employment of women in mines, he entirely concurred with the principle of the provision for their non-employment, He believed he was correct in saying that in Wales

    1867
    women were not employed in mines at all—at least, if there were any, he had never seen them; and he thoroughly agreed that they ought not to be so employed. From long experience in the House, he advised that a second reading of the measure should be taken, no matter what the promises of the Government might be. He had known many good measures lost through their being postponed with the view of the Government taking the question up and legislating upon the matter in a fuller and more satisfactory manner than could be done in a private Member's Bill. The intentions of the Government, no doubt, were very good; but when the pressure of Business came upon them, and time was growing short, the promised measure was too often abandoned of necessity, and a remedial measure, which, though perhaps not perfect, would have been very useful, was lost. He did not wish to see such a result here, and he, therefore, hoped the Government would accede to a second reading.
    MR. BURTsaid, the hon. Member for Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) had raised a very useful discussion on this Bill, and he was glad that he had introduced it. He (Mr. Burt) said that, however, rather because he thought it indicated that they might expect the hon. Member's support in any measure affecting the interest of the working miners than because he regarded this as an adequate or satisfactory measure. The Bill itself, he (Mr. Burt) could not vote for as indicating anything like a settlement of the mining question. It simply touched the rim of a very large, wide, and complex subject. It was very well known that the late Government intended to deal with the general subject of inspection of mines, and he had no doubt that his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Broadhurst) would be able to say whether the present Government intended to introduce a measure with the same object. He had had a Question which he was going to put to the Home Secretary (Mr. Childers); but he had seen the right hon. Gentleman privately with regard to what the Government meant to do. A Royal Commission, of which he (Mr. Burt) had the honour to be a Member, had been sitting for a very considerable
    1868
    time. He was sorry that they had not up to the present been able to report; but the Commission had inquired more steadily and completely into all questions relating to mining than these had ever before been inquired into, and the Commission would report in a very short time. In fact, it was no secret that a considerable portion of the Report was already in print. He trusted, therefore, that the Government would take this opportunity of stating what they meant to do on the subject; and if they were prepared to deal with it in a thorough way, and in a way which only a Government could deal with a large public measure of this kind, he would advise his hon. Friend (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) to be satisfied with the discussion he had raised, and to take the opportunity of introducing any Amendments that might be wished into the Bill of the Government. He entirely approved of the clause in the Bill before them relating to check-weighmen. The only objection the working miners had to the present Act was that they were not allowed absolute liberty of choice. Their choice was limited to men in the employ of the same firm. The miners objected to that restriction, and wanted to have absolute liberty to select any person whatever to fill the position of check-weighman. He would not detain the House any further, as he was anxious to hear the views of the Government.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. BROADHURST)said, the only reason why the Government had not expressed their views on this question at an earlier stage of the proceedings was their desire to hear a very full expression of opinion upon the subject by those hon. Members who were most capable of giving an opinion, and were mostly interested in this class of legislation. With respect to the Bill of the hon. Member for Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor), he need not assure him, nor need he assure the House, of the deep and earnest sympathy which the Government felt for the working miners of Great Britain. At the same time, there were parts of the Bill which did not appear to commend themselves without reserve to the Government. With regard to the clause which had reference to the Weights and Measures Act applying to the machinery used in the

    1869
    weighing of coal, he believed he was speaking correctly when he said there was no necessity whatever for the extension of this clause; that the present law already applied to all weights and measures, whether in mines or in factories, that had to do with the decision of the amount of wages for any particular labour performed either by workmen or work-women. Then, with regard to the fixed periods of visits for Mine Inspectors, he thought his hon. Friend (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) had probably not been a workman in the sense in which his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Fenwick) and he himself had been a workman for the greater part of his life. What workmen always viewed with the greatest amount of pleasure was the visits of the manager or foreman who would keep regularity, because when they got rid of him they knew they were perfectly free to indulge relaxation until the recurrence of the next visit. Gentlemen who were the most objectionable wore the foremen or managers of irregular habits, one upon whose visits they could never depend for a moment, and the consequence was they were in a constant state of labour and uncertainty.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he did not propose by his Bill that the visits of the Inspector should be at fixed times, or that notice should be sent to the mine owners.
    MR. BROADHURSTsaid, he noticed that; but he thought that was an instruction always given to Inspectors without any express instruction in an Act of Parliament. Indeed, a man who would want information of the necessity of not announcing his visit would be a man absolutely unfit for the discharge of such important duties. With regard to the question of check-weighmen, he thought he was speaking the mind of the Government when he said that the Government quite saw the necessity of some relaxation in regard to this subject the check-weighman was a person as clearly in the employment of the miners themselves as the miners were clearly in the employment of the mine owner; and, therefore, working miners should have considerable liberty in the field for selecting this very important person. In respect of the question of the policy of the Government in regard to the Bill under discussion, he had to say that the Government viewed with
    1870
    considerable favour the wise attempts to amend the Mines Regulation Act in this and some other directions; and he, therefore, wished to assure the hon. Member (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) that he must not regard them in any way as opponents to his Bill. There was an important feature in the demands of the miners which the hon. Gentleman had altogether overlooked, and that was the question of the presence of the relatives at Coroners' inquests, and the demand of the right and power to put questions as to the cause of death. That was what many of his hon. Friends in mining districts regarded as one of the things that was of the utmost importance.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that his hon. Friend (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) was quite willing to accept Amendments dealing with these points.
    MR. BROADHURSTsaid, he was not challenging the hon. Member's objection to have it inserted, but was pointing out its great importance. With regard to the Royal Commission, he had the authority of the Government to say that the Report would be issued within a week, and that one of the first works of the Home Office would be to prepare a measure in the light of that Commission, having regard to other demands made from other directions, and, in the meantime, would wish that a Bill of this description, if it should pass its second reading, which they would certainly not oppose this afternoon, that the Committee stage should be placed at such a date that would give them opportunities between now and then of preparing and submitting their proposals to the House. If the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) would accept that view, he should be very glad indeed, on behalf of the Government, not to proceed further in the debate. He might also state that the Government would take precisely the same course with regard to the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Asshcton Cross).
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, the promoters of the Bill were willing to accept the intimation just made, and would postpone the Committee stage of the Bill for a month.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Wednesday 31st March.

  COAL MINES BILL.— [Bill 92.]
  (Sir Richard Cross, Mr. Stuart-Worthy, Mr. Forwood.)
  COAL MINES BILL.— [Bill 92.]

    SECOND READING.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir R. Assheton Cross.)
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPAETMENT (Mr. CHILDERS)said, he would object to the Motion, except on the same terms as the other Bill.
    SIR E. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he could not consent to any such terms.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be committed for Monday next."—(Sir R. Assheton Cross.)
    MR. CHILDERS,in objecting to the Motion, said, the Committee stage ought to be put off till that day month.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he proposed to put it down for Monday till he knew what the Government meant to do.
    MR. CHILDERSsaid, he had no objection to that; but when it came up on Monday he would move that the Committee stage be put off for a month.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he would object to that unless they could come to some arrangement, and hoped to be able to convince the Government that they had done wrong in putting off the Committee stage on the other Bill for a month.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill committed for Monday next.

MOTIONS.

  BOROUGH FUNDS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Kenrick, Bill to amend an Act of the Session of the thirty-fifth and thirty-sixth years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter ninety-one, intituled "An Act to authorise the application of Funds of Municipal Corporations and other governing bodies in certain cases," ordered to he brought in by Mr. Kenrick, Mr. Edward Clarke, Major Dickson, Mr. Picton, and Mr. Woodhead.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 122.]

  DROWNED PERSONS (DISCOVERY AND INTERMENT) BILL.
  On Motion of Colonel Hughes, Bill to amend the Law in respect to the discovery and inter-
  1872
  ment of persons drowned, ordered to be brought in by Colonel Hughes, Mr. Boord, Mr. Baggallay, Mr. Norris, and Colonel Duncan.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 123.]

  PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Moulton, Bill to amend the Laws respecting the Parliamentary Franchise in the United Kingdom, and the conduct of Elections, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Moulton, Mr. A. Acland, and Mr. Dillwyn.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 124.]

  COPYRIGHT (WORKS OF FINE ART) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Hastings, Bill to amend and consolidate the Law of Copyright in Works of Fine Art and in Photographs, and for repressing the commission of fraud in the production and sale of such works, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hastings, Mr. Gregory, and Mr. Agnew.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 125.]

  ACTIONS FOR DEBT (LIMITATION) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr Hobhouse, Bill for further limiting the time for the recovery of simple contract Debts, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hobhouse, Mr. A. Acland, Mr. Glyn, and Mr. Lacaita.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 126.]

  CONVEYANCING (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1874, AMENDMENT.
  On Motion of Dr. Cameron, Bill to amend "The Conveyancing (Scotland) Act, 1874," ordered to be brought in by Dr. Cameron, Mr. Craig Sellar, Mr. Donald Crawford, and Mr. Lyell.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 127.]
  House adjourned at ten minutes before Six o'clock.